» Articles » PMID: 39194041

Cost-Utility of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock: A Brazilian Perspective Study

Abstract

Background: Refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high mortality rates, and the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) as a therapeutic option has generated discussions. Therefore, its cost-effectiveness, especially in low- and middle-income countries like Brazil, remains uncertain.Objectives: To conduct a cost-utility analysis from the Brazilian Unified Health System perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of VA-ECMO combined with standard care compared to standard care alone in adult refractory CS patients.

Methods: We followed a cohort of refractory CS patients treated with VA-ECMO in tertiary care centers located in Southern Brazilian. We collected data on hospital outcomes and costs. We conducted a systematic review to supplement our data and utilized a Markov model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and per life-year gained.

Results: In the base-case analysis, VA-ECMO yielded an ICER of Int$ 37,491 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses identified hospitalization cost, relative risk of survival, and VA-ECMO group survival as key drivers of results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored VA-ECMO, with a 78% probability of cost-effectiveness at the recommended willingness-to-pay threshold.

Conclusions: Our study suggests that, within the Brazilian Health System framework, VA-ECMO may be a cost-effective therapy for refractory CS. However, limited efficacy data and recent trials questioning its benefit in specific patient subsets highlight the need for further research. Rigorous clinical trials, encompassing diverse patient profiles, are essential to confirm cost-effectiveness and ensure equitable access to advanced medical interventions within healthcare systems, particularly in socio-economically diverse countries like Brazil.

Citing Articles

No Time to Die.

Caneo L Arq Bras Cardiol. 2024; 121(8):e20240512.

PMID: 39356948 PMC: 11495808. DOI: 10.36660/abc.20240512.

References
1.
Leopold J, Taichman D . Routine Early ECLS in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock?. N Engl J Med. 2023; 389(14):1331-1332. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe2309395. View

2.
Machado F . All in a Day's Work - Equity vs. Equality at a Public ICU in Brazil. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(25):2420-2421. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1610059. View

3.
Zeymer U, Freund A, Hochadel M, Ostadal P, Belohlavek J, Rokyta R . Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2023; 402(10410):1338-1346. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01607-0. View

4.
Schwarzer R, Rochau U, Saverno K, Jahn B, Bornschein B, Muehlberger N . Systematic overview of cost-effectiveness thresholds in ten countries across four continents. J Comp Eff Res. 2015; 4(5):485-504. DOI: 10.2217/cer.15.38. View

5.
Nimdet K, Chaiyakunapruk N, Vichansavakul K, Ngorsuraches S . A systematic review of studies eliciting willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life year: does it justify CE threshold?. PLoS One. 2015; 10(4):e0122760. PMC: 4391853. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122760. View